In split from allies, Newsom vetoes abortion shield law

Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here.

Hello and welcome back to Capitol Confidential! 

Let’s dive a little deeper today into some of the governor’s recent vetoes. 

One of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s most reliable allies, abortion rights advocacy groups, are issuing a rare rebuke of the governor after he vetoed a bill that would have extended California’s abortion shield laws and expanded legal protections for gender-affirming care.

AB2164 by Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, D-Orinda, aimed to codify the state’s landmark protections for medical professionals providing abortion health care to out-of-state patients. 

It would have essentially cemented Newsom’s 2022 executive order that declared California would not extradite individuals who provide or aid in providing abortion care to patients in other states with stricter abortion access laws – commonly through the prescription of medication abortion drugs, such as mifepristone.

But the bill also would have looped in gender-affirming care under those same extradition protections, amid a years-long rise in the number of states enacting bans on gender care access, especially for minors. 

The current shield law, which applies only to reproductive care, remains intact as an executive order, but is subject to changes or rescindments from future governors. It’s that potential vulnerability that the bill’s supporters are concerned about.

The veto drew swift condemnation from groups that have otherwise been hand-in-glove with the governor on reproductive rights – an issue he has prominently advocated for and used to criticize President Donald Trump and his administrations. 

Research group the Guttmacher Institute and leading advocacy organization Reproductive Freedom for All criticized the decision, as did bill author Bauer-Kahan. 

Reactions ranged from "condemnation" by Reproductive Freedom for All to “disappointment” by the Guttmacher Institute and Bauer-Kahan. 

Lizzy Hinkley, legal director for the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine Access, a sponsor of the bill, called Newsom’s veto explanation a “cold comfort to Californians” after the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022. 

“A high-brow, academic justification for refusing to codify legal protections only reveals an ignorance for the lived reality of patients and providers – and does nothing to help them,” Hinkley said. 

Advocates of the law have been especially concerned over the executive order’s future after the Republican candidate for governor, Steve Hilton, seesawed between supporting hypothetical extraditions of abortion providers and later pledging that he would not. The Democratic candidate Xavier Becerra has been more clear in his position against any extraditions. 

In his veto message on Sunday explaining the decision, Newsom took issue not with the shield laws themselves, but with the approach of making the executive order into a permanent statute. Newsom called extradition an “exclusively executive function,” and warned against overriding that power. 

Newsom vetoes bill that would have expanded recourse for alleged trial misconduct

From the Chronicle’s courts reporter Bob Egelko:

Newsom vetoed a bill that would have increased criminal defendants' rights to challenge their conviction or sentence because of newly discovered evidence of misconduct by prosecutors or officials. 

Newsom said he was mainly concerned about the financial costs of additional court proceedings.

Current law allows defendants whose convictions have been upheld in court to file a new challenge, as a writ of habeas corpus, based on new evidence of fraud, lies or fabrication of evidence that was crucial to the prosecution's case. 

AB1595 by Assembly Member Nick Schultz, D-Burbank would have enabled defendants to seek habeas corpus relief if new evidence of fraud, false testimony or other previously concealed conduct would establish a "reasonable probability" of an acquittal or a lesser sentence. It was supported by criminal defense groups and opposed by prosecutors, and passed the Legislature along party lines.

Supporters said a study by law schools at UC Berkeley and the University of Pennsylvania found that convictions later determined to be wrongful had cost California taxpayers more than $282 million, for excessive imprisonment, additional court proceedings and other expenses, between 1989 and 2012.

In response, the California District Attorneys Association told lawmakers that "convictions are presumed valid, and courts and victims have an interest in the finality of convictions."

In his veto message on Sunday, Newsom steered clear of criminal justice policy issues and said AB1595 "will result in additional workload costs" for prosecutors, public  defenders and the prison system, and would increase the courts' already-overflowing caseloads. The governor said he is trying to keep California's budget balanced and limit spending in light of "the challenging fiscal landscape our state faces."

Schultz said in a statement he was disappointed, saying AB1595 "would have strengthened our legal system by ensuring that courts could correct wrongful convictions while preserving judicial discretion.”

Jasmin Harris, policy director of bill cosponsor the California Innocence Coalition, said they group was “discouraged to see that innocence has a price tag.”

But Greg Totten, chief executive officer of the District Attorneys Association, praised Newsom's action and said the prosecutors' group "completely agree(s) with the cost and related justice impact concerns cited in his veto message."

Federal immigration agents detained an Assembly staffer while he was traveling through Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas. 

Ho Yin Mo is from Hong Kong and is a field representative for Assembly Member Catherine Stefani, D-San Francisco. As the Chronicle’s Sara DiNatale reported, he was arrested by agents on Thursday and is being held at a Nevada immigration detention center, according to Stefani’s chief of staff, Daniel Herzstein. 

Mo’s arrest comes as the Trump administration continues to crack down on immigration enforcement efforts at airports across the country. 

“My message today is simple: I am respectfully calling for Ho Yin Mo’s release as soon as possible,” Stefani said in a statement. “Ho Yin is a selfless public servant and a valued, legal employee of the California State Legislature serving our San Francisco and Bay Area communities.” 

An unnamed Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told the Chronicle in a statement that Mo was arrested during a “targeted enforcement operation” by Immigration and Customs and Enforcement. Mo lawfully entered the country on temporary basis in 2020 but “illegally overstayed his welcome,” the spokesperson said.

After vetoing all but one of a handful of bills passed by the Legislature last year seeking to rein in and more strictly regulate data centers, Newsom appears to have changed his tune entirely. 

Of the seven substantive data center bills that made it to his desk, the governor signed them all into law. 

It’s a dramatic change in position in only a year, in another sign that data centers have skyrocketed to become an issue lawmakers (and anyone running for higher office) are unable to ignore. 

State Sen. Steve Padilla, D-Chula Vista, authored the only data center regulation bill that passed last year, SB57. It was significantly watered down to only require the California Public Utilities Commission to conduct a study on data centers’ impacts on the energy grid – instead of establishing new rate structures aimed at preventing data centers’ large energy loads from impacting California’s energy bills.

This year, two bills that propose rate restructuring to insulate ratepayers passed under Newsom’s pen: AB2383, from Assembly Member Rick Chavez Zbur, D-Los Angeles, and SB1168 by Sen. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton.

Two other data center bills from Padilla also got the greenlight this year: SB886 and SB887.

The former, which takes its cue from SB57’s original version, would establish a new tariff for the centers, applied by the CPUC, meant to cover the costs associated with connections to the electrical grid. 

The latter, SB887, would clarify data centers are not eligible for exemptions from California’s strict environmental review laws.

Bills proposing stricter oversight of data centers’ water use and environmental impact also passed Newsom’s pen this year.

AB2619, by Assembly Member Diane Papan, D-San Mateo, requires data centers to report their projected and annual water usage, and directs state agencies to develop water efficiency guidelines to evaluate proposed data centers by 2029. A similar version of this bill, AB93, was vetoed by Newsom last year. 

Another Papan bill, AB2469, prohibits data center construction if it increases peak water use limits.

Finally, AB1577, from Bauer-Kahan, requires data centers to report their energy use information with state regulatory agencies and directs the state’s Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to publish the energy data every two years, starting in 2029. 

Questions? Thoughts? Interesting tidbits to share? Reach out at [email protected], and follow me on X, @KathrynPlmr.